Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
On 4 Dec 2005 at 21:15, peter markavage wrote: > These "rejectors" of the proposal account for less than > .1% of the ham population Yes and the proponents in that discussion (3, I think) comprise about 0.06% of the USA amateur population. The nays have it. The burden of proof is on anyone who wants this absurd turkey of a proposal left over from Thanksgiving (grin!)
[AMRadio] Have you got a big knob?
Anyone have, or know a source for, a big knob that would fit a 3/8" shaft? Or maybe it is 5/16... seems to be between those measurements. It is for the bandswitch on a European marine HF amp, so maybe it is metric. I'm on the lookout for a 2.5" - 3.5" knob to fit this shaft and give me the leverage to crank the various mechnicals behind the panel. Thanks for any leads... Steve Johnston WD8DAS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
"Click" and "Chirp" are positive identifiers in any amateur radio circle these days. Sort of like "Roger beep" on CB. Pete, wa2cwa On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 18:47:51 -0800 "Bob Macklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What are the rules about "CLICK" and "CHIRP"? I don't remember the > bitching > about them 50 years ago. > > "CLICK" and "CHIRP" should be GRANDFATHERED for BoatAnchors! > > Bob Macklin > K5MYJ > Seattle, Wa. > - Original Message - > From: "W5OMR/Geoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Discussion of AM Radio" > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 6:25 PM > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire > > > > peter markavage wrote: > > > > >Did you actually count how many "different" people actually > commented on > > >these 50 pages? These "rejectors" of the proposal account for > less than > > >.1% of the ham population. Show me better numbers and I'll have > some > > >sympathy for your concern. Teller's comments also are almost > three years > > >old. The proposal has gone through several iterations since then. > Some of > > >the alternative proposals that are now being proposed on QRZ by > these > > >ARRL proposal "rejectors" actually could provide much more harm > to AM. > > >The ARRL proposal actually preserves our legacy mode out to > 9KHz. > > > > > >Pete ,wa2cwa > > > > > > > Let me get a show of hands... > > how many people in here can accuratly measure their AM Rigs PEP > output > > power? > > > > Now, how many of you abide by the 1500w PEP output limit, as set > by law? > > > > I don't have my hand up, either. > > > > > > > > How many of us can accuratly measure how wide our signal is? > > > > I don't have that kind of equipment, either. How am I going to > know if > > I'm in violation of the 9kHz bandwidth ruling, if/when it comes > into > effect? > > > > I thin that seriously, If I were to build a sharp band-pass > filter, that > > rolls the audio off at 4.5kHz, sharply, I might be hard-pressed to > find > > a device that could fill that filter. I don't think I've got any > audio > > on my rig, wider than around 5 or maybe 6kc, of frequency > response. > > > > At least no one has ever accused me of being 'broad' (signal wise, > that > > is ;-)) > > > > --- > > 73 = Best Regards, > > -Geoff/W5OMR
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
I agree. It's probably better they battle each other screen to screen rather than filling the air waves with all their personal agendas. Pete, wa2cwa On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 18:25:30 -0800 "Bob Macklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I see more activity on the QRZ and eHam message boards then I hear on > my > receivers. > > And it is probably just as well! > > Bob Macklin > K5MYJ > Seattle, Wa. > - Original Message - > From: "peter markavage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 6:15 PM > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire > > > > Did you actually count how many "different" people actually > commented on > > these 50 pages? These "rejectors" of the proposal account for less > than > > .1% of the ham population. Show me better numbers and I'll have > some > > sympathy for your concern. Teller's comments also are almost three > years > > old. The proposal has gone through several iterations since then. > Some of > > the alternative proposals that are now being proposed on QRZ by > these > > ARRL proposal "rejectors" actually could provide much more harm to > AM. > > The ARRL proposal actually preserves our legacy mode out to 9KHz. > > > > Pete ,wa2cwa > > > > On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:37:26 -0500 "Brian Carling" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > writes: > > > > > > http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=107079 > > > > > > 50 Pages of well-reasoned discussion (in most cases) and > > > rebuttal by the people who have experienced the MENACE that > > > K4CJX, KQ6XA and their petty, "Anti-amateur-radio-as-we-know- > > > it" crowd are trying to FORCE on amateur radio. > > > > > > You will find VERY few supporters of this Bandwidth Proposal. > > > The whole thing needs to be rejected lock, stock and barrel. > > > I have left ARRL because of this, and the other (many) things > they > > > have done over the past few years to ruin amateur radio. > > > > > > They are NOT listening, and they are NO LONGER "Of, By and > > > For the Radio Amateur." > > > > > > They are now Of, By and For the Commercial, Digital Special > > > Interest Lobby headed by K4CJX and Winlink Pactor which has > > > totally over-ruled sound judgement in regards to the rules > > > governing automatic unattended HF digital stations > > > > > > The following is the BACKDROP to the lunacy that is now > > > prevailing in ARRL's Proposal (WHICH I understand may be > > > actually with the ENCOURAGEMENT AND COMPLICITY of FCC) > > > > > > http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html > > > > > > A torpedo fired into the heeart of AM would NOT be out of step > with > > > > > > the kind of MANIPULATION that is already going on behind the > > > scenes. OR just the threat of it to intimidate others into > getting > > > on > > > board this train to hell in a hand basket. > > > > > > Your mileage may vary. My mileage will mostly stick with > > > preserving the right to HOMEBREW, and to operate AM > > > and CW without QRM from the PAC PESTS that belong > > > on VHF and above. > > > > > > On 5 Dec 2005 at 0:33, Donald Chester wrote: > > > > > > > I think we could have reasonably well predicted this: > > > > > > > > "...Perhaps the one thing most egregious to digital proponents > in > > > the ARRL > > > > bandwidth plan has been an exemption in the 3.5khz band > segment > > > for AM. Mr. > > > > Rotolo confirms that this exception has raised quite a ruckus > in > > > the digital > > > > community. It begs the question, if an exception is created > for AM > > > why not > > > > an exception for 25khz data..." > > > > > > > > "...Perhaps the petition shows undue favoritism for AM phone. > > > Instead of > > > > that, a better way would be a 10kHz bandwidth overlay in parts > of > > > larger HF > > > > ham bands at REDUCED AVERAGE POWER LEVEL(emphasis mine) This > would > > > allow AM > > > > but not preclude other transmission methods with similar > bandwidth > > > occupancy > > > > effects. Obviously, the ARRL has bowed to tradition in these > areas > > > in their > > > > efforts to accommodate the status quo." > > > > > > > > http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=108389 > > > > > > > > Don k4kyv
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
Jim Wilhite wrote: The station in Antlers is probably the reason the ARRL is grandfathering in the 9Kc. thingie, that way he is only splatters and additional 12 Kc. I still say you are too broad. My standard is a crystal set with a counter interfaced. 73 Jim W5JO A CRYSTAL SET? hell, yer lucky you can *FIND* 75m on that thing! ;-)
Re: [AMRadio] Re: AMradio -tubes and transformers site up again
Pat, lot of good stuff there. Your index pages reminds me of the scene in the Clint Eastwood film shot in the "Pigeon Toed Orange Peel" Good work!!! 73 Jim W5JO I've put the transformer catalogs and tube manuals online at b u n k e r o f d o o m d o t c o m, just put it together, and have a look. (sorbs.net likes to block innocent e-mails and then try to extort ISPs for unblocking them, so that is why I have spelled the name as it is.) 73 Patrick
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
Jim Wilhite wrote: At least no one has ever accused me of being 'broad' (signal wise, that is ;-)) --- 73 = Best Regards, -Geoff/W5OMR I'll accuse you Geoff, you are too wide! 500+ miles away, and *I'M* too broad, but that station in Antlers, OK is not? You -do- need a better receiver! --- 73 = Best Regards, -Geoff/W5OMR The station in Antlers is probably the reason the ARRL is grandfathering in the 9Kc. thingie, that way he is only splatters and additional 12 Kc. I still say you are too broad. My standard is a crystal set with a counter interfaced. 73 Jim W5JO
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
Bob Macklin wrote: <>What are the rules about "CLICK" and "CHIRP"? I don't remember the bitching about them 50 years ago. "CLICK" and "CHIRP" should be GRANDFATHERED for BoatAnchors! I don't think there are rules -against- click's and chirps... as long as you're using 'good engineering practice' when you build a rig. If your commercially built Johnson/B&W/Collins/Multi-Elmac/whatever has chirp or a click on it, you adjust the rig as best as possible, and if need be (if it's bad enough) you dig into the rig and fix it. Wouldn't it be a horrible thing if we wind up like Canada is, now, where we can only run FCC type-accepted equipment? -Geoff
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
Jim Wilhite wrote: At least no one has ever accused me of being 'broad' (signal wise, that is ;-)) --- 73 = Best Regards, -Geoff/W5OMR I'll accuse you Geoff, you are too wide! 500+ miles away, and *I'M* too broad, but that station in Antlers, OK is not? You -do- need a better receiver! --- 73 = Best Regards, -Geoff/W5OMR
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
What are the rules about "CLICK" and "CHIRP"? I don't remember the bitching about them 50 years ago. "CLICK" and "CHIRP" should be GRANDFATHERED for BoatAnchors! Bob Macklin K5MYJ Seattle, Wa. - Original Message - From: "W5OMR/Geoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Discussion of AM Radio" Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire > peter markavage wrote: > > >Did you actually count how many "different" people actually commented on > >these 50 pages? These "rejectors" of the proposal account for less than > >.1% of the ham population. Show me better numbers and I'll have some > >sympathy for your concern. Teller's comments also are almost three years > >old. The proposal has gone through several iterations since then. Some of > >the alternative proposals that are now being proposed on QRZ by these > >ARRL proposal "rejectors" actually could provide much more harm to AM. > >The ARRL proposal actually preserves our legacy mode out to 9KHz. > > > >Pete ,wa2cwa > > > > Let me get a show of hands... > how many people in here can accuratly measure their AM Rigs PEP output > power? > > Now, how many of you abide by the 1500w PEP output limit, as set by law? > > I don't have my hand up, either. > > > > How many of us can accuratly measure how wide our signal is? > > I don't have that kind of equipment, either. How am I going to know if > I'm in violation of the 9kHz bandwidth ruling, if/when it comes into effect? > > I thin that seriously, If I were to build a sharp band-pass filter, that > rolls the audio off at 4.5kHz, sharply, I might be hard-pressed to find > a device that could fill that filter. I don't think I've got any audio > on my rig, wider than around 5 or maybe 6kc, of frequency response. > > At least no one has ever accused me of being 'broad' (signal wise, that > is ;-)) > > --- > 73 = Best Regards, > -Geoff/W5OMR > > > __ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami >
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
Jim Wilhite wrote: is ;-)) --- 73 = Best Regards, -Geoff/W5OMR At least no one has ever accused me of being 'broad' (signal wise, that I'll accuse you Geoff, you are too wide! Fine. Prove it. (and here comes the excuses, the lack of proper equipment, what's the 'standard'? an HQ-129X? How strong is my signal in your receiver? What's the rejection of your receiver?) so, again.. what are you going to measure someone's signal with? Besides that, who would you know? When's the last time we talked on the air? (grinz) --- 73 = Best Regards, -Geoff/W5OMR
[AMRadio] Re: AMradio -tubes and transformers site up again
I've put the transformer catalogs and tube manuals online at b u n k e r o f d o o m d o t c o m, just put it together, and have a look. (sorbs.net likes to block innocent e-mails and then try to extort ISPs for unblocking them, so that is why I have spelled the name as it is.) 73 Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Send AMRadio mailing list submissions to amradio@mailman.qth.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of AMRadio digest..."
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
- Original Message - From: "W5OMR/Geoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Discussion of AM Radio" Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire At least no one has ever accused me of being 'broad' (signal wise, that is ;-)) --- 73 = Best Regards, -Geoff/W5OMR I'll accuse you Geoff, you are too wide! 73 Jim W5JO
Re: [AMRadio] Loop antenna feed question
Ask yourself, what do you gain by using a Loop? From a transmit perspective, not much, if anything. I have heard many people switch from loops to dipoles at the same power level and location and saw little difference. From a receive perspective, maybe something. You might reduce noise in your receiver. I can't speak to this since I have never used a Loop. So, you gain in your receiver, but that is all. What good is it to hear someone if you can't put a signal to him/her? Not only that, you use 2X the wire to build a loop which won't transmit any better than an inverted Vee at the same height. If you want close in communications out to 150 miles daytime and 300 or so nighttime (under current propagation conditions) on 75 use a low antenna. If you desire communications out further than that, get the antenna up over 40 ft and the ends more than 20 ft. off the ground. So long as the angle of the legs are more than 100 degrees. Where all this falls down is the ground. If the voltage points are near ground the worms will love you, if the current node is near ground, impedance problems. So you have a choice. In past years that I couldn't get my antenna up in the clear, I made lots of friends close in and always dropped out if someone couldn't hear me. Rememberthere are no short cuts on antennas. Proper installation equals good results for the desired coverage and design matters little. 73 Jim W5JO LB Cebik, W4RNL, on his web site, talking about Cloud Warmers, indicates 35 feet as the accepted height for a 75m loop. I am planning a loop for 160m at just a little over that height. Joe W4AAB John, Hmmm 450" loop at 5'. Feedpoint impedance would vary all over the place depending on frequency. Do you transmitting on this setup, and if so, are you using some kind of an antenna tuner, balanced output or single ended, how long is the feedline, and what frequencies do you intend to use? In any case, can't see that fanning out at the feedpoint would be necessary or useful. Dennis D. W7QHO Glendale, CA
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
I see more activity on the QRZ and eHam message boards then I hear on my receivers. And it is probably just as well! Bob Macklin K5MYJ Seattle, Wa. - Original Message - From: "peter markavage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire > Did you actually count how many "different" people actually commented on > these 50 pages? These "rejectors" of the proposal account for less than > .1% of the ham population. Show me better numbers and I'll have some > sympathy for your concern. Teller's comments also are almost three years > old. The proposal has gone through several iterations since then. Some of > the alternative proposals that are now being proposed on QRZ by these > ARRL proposal "rejectors" actually could provide much more harm to AM. > The ARRL proposal actually preserves our legacy mode out to 9KHz. > > Pete ,wa2cwa > > On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:37:26 -0500 "Brian Carling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > > > > http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=107079 > > > > 50 Pages of well-reasoned discussion (in most cases) and > > rebuttal by the people who have experienced the MENACE that > > K4CJX, KQ6XA and their petty, "Anti-amateur-radio-as-we-know- > > it" crowd are trying to FORCE on amateur radio. > > > > You will find VERY few supporters of this Bandwidth Proposal. > > The whole thing needs to be rejected lock, stock and barrel. > > I have left ARRL because of this, and the other (many) things they > > have done over the past few years to ruin amateur radio. > > > > They are NOT listening, and they are NO LONGER "Of, By and > > For the Radio Amateur." > > > > They are now Of, By and For the Commercial, Digital Special > > Interest Lobby headed by K4CJX and Winlink Pactor which has > > totally over-ruled sound judgement in regards to the rules > > governing automatic unattended HF digital stations > > > > The following is the BACKDROP to the lunacy that is now > > prevailing in ARRL's Proposal (WHICH I understand may be > > actually with the ENCOURAGEMENT AND COMPLICITY of FCC) > > > > http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html > > > > A torpedo fired into the heeart of AM would NOT be out of step with > > > > the kind of MANIPULATION that is already going on behind the > > scenes. OR just the threat of it to intimidate others into getting > > on > > board this train to hell in a hand basket. > > > > Your mileage may vary. My mileage will mostly stick with > > preserving the right to HOMEBREW, and to operate AM > > and CW without QRM from the PAC PESTS that belong > > on VHF and above. > > > > On 5 Dec 2005 at 0:33, Donald Chester wrote: > > > > > I think we could have reasonably well predicted this: > > > > > > "...Perhaps the one thing most egregious to digital proponents in > > the ARRL > > > bandwidth plan has been an exemption in the 3.5khz band segment > > for AM. Mr. > > > Rotolo confirms that this exception has raised quite a ruckus in > > the digital > > > community. It begs the question, if an exception is created for AM > > why not > > > an exception for 25khz data..." > > > > > > "...Perhaps the petition shows undue favoritism for AM phone. > > Instead of > > > that, a better way would be a 10kHz bandwidth overlay in parts of > > larger HF > > > ham bands at REDUCED AVERAGE POWER LEVEL(emphasis mine) This would > > allow AM > > > but not preclude other transmission methods with similar bandwidth > > occupancy > > > effects. Obviously, the ARRL has bowed to tradition in these areas > > in their > > > efforts to accommodate the status quo." > > > > > > http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=108389 > > > > > > Don k4kyv > __ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami >
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
peter markavage wrote: Did you actually count how many "different" people actually commented on these 50 pages? These "rejectors" of the proposal account for less than .1% of the ham population. Show me better numbers and I'll have some sympathy for your concern. Teller's comments also are almost three years old. The proposal has gone through several iterations since then. Some of the alternative proposals that are now being proposed on QRZ by these ARRL proposal "rejectors" actually could provide much more harm to AM. The ARRL proposal actually preserves our legacy mode out to 9KHz. Pete ,wa2cwa Let me get a show of hands... how many people in here can accuratly measure their AM Rigs PEP output power? Now, how many of you abide by the 1500w PEP output limit, as set by law? I don't have my hand up, either. How many of us can accuratly measure how wide our signal is? I don't have that kind of equipment, either. How am I going to know if I'm in violation of the 9kHz bandwidth ruling, if/when it comes into effect? I thin that seriously, If I were to build a sharp band-pass filter, that rolls the audio off at 4.5kHz, sharply, I might be hard-pressed to find a device that could fill that filter. I don't think I've got any audio on my rig, wider than around 5 or maybe 6kc, of frequency response. At least no one has ever accused me of being 'broad' (signal wise, that is ;-)) --- 73 = Best Regards, -Geoff/W5OMR
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
Did you actually count how many "different" people actually commented on these 50 pages? These "rejectors" of the proposal account for less than .1% of the ham population. Show me better numbers and I'll have some sympathy for your concern. Teller's comments also are almost three years old. The proposal has gone through several iterations since then. Some of the alternative proposals that are now being proposed on QRZ by these ARRL proposal "rejectors" actually could provide much more harm to AM. The ARRL proposal actually preserves our legacy mode out to 9KHz. Pete ,wa2cwa On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:37:26 -0500 "Brian Carling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=107079 > > 50 Pages of well-reasoned discussion (in most cases) and > rebuttal by the people who have experienced the MENACE that > K4CJX, KQ6XA and their petty, "Anti-amateur-radio-as-we-know- > it" crowd are trying to FORCE on amateur radio. > > You will find VERY few supporters of this Bandwidth Proposal. > The whole thing needs to be rejected lock, stock and barrel. > I have left ARRL because of this, and the other (many) things they > have done over the past few years to ruin amateur radio. > > They are NOT listening, and they are NO LONGER "Of, By and > For the Radio Amateur." > > They are now Of, By and For the Commercial, Digital Special > Interest Lobby headed by K4CJX and Winlink Pactor which has > totally over-ruled sound judgement in regards to the rules > governing automatic unattended HF digital stations > > The following is the BACKDROP to the lunacy that is now > prevailing in ARRL's Proposal (WHICH I understand may be > actually with the ENCOURAGEMENT AND COMPLICITY of FCC) > > http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html > > A torpedo fired into the heeart of AM would NOT be out of step with > > the kind of MANIPULATION that is already going on behind the > scenes. OR just the threat of it to intimidate others into getting > on > board this train to hell in a hand basket. > > Your mileage may vary. My mileage will mostly stick with > preserving the right to HOMEBREW, and to operate AM > and CW without QRM from the PAC PESTS that belong > on VHF and above. > > On 5 Dec 2005 at 0:33, Donald Chester wrote: > > > I think we could have reasonably well predicted this: > > > > "...Perhaps the one thing most egregious to digital proponents in > the ARRL > > bandwidth plan has been an exemption in the 3.5khz band segment > for AM. Mr. > > Rotolo confirms that this exception has raised quite a ruckus in > the digital > > community. It begs the question, if an exception is created for AM > why not > > an exception for 25khz data..." > > > > "...Perhaps the petition shows undue favoritism for AM phone. > Instead of > > that, a better way would be a 10kHz bandwidth overlay in parts of > larger HF > > ham bands at REDUCED AVERAGE POWER LEVEL(emphasis mine) This would > allow AM > > but not preclude other transmission methods with similar bandwidth > occupancy > > effects. Obviously, the ARRL has bowed to tradition in these areas > in their > > efforts to accommodate the status quo." > > > > http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=108389 > > > > Don k4kyv
Re: [AMRadio] Loop antenna feed question
crawfish wrote: LB Cebik, W4RNL, on his web site, talking about Cloud Warmers, indicates 35 feet as the accepted height for a 75m loop. I am planning a loop for 160m at just a little over that height. Joe W4AAB Does he say -why- having the antenna no more than 1/8th wave above ground is better than having it a quarter wave up? I had it explained to me one time like this (strictly dipole speaking) Picture in your mind, a conventional half-wave, center fed dipole. Using each end as the outside points, draw a circle around the antenna. The dipole ends make the width across the circle. The height of the circle, from ground, would be the same as the length - 1/2 wavelength long. In the neighborhood of 3.880, that length calculates out to 120' (468 / 3.9Mc = 120') So, with the picture of the circle around the dipole in your mind, mentally change the circle to a 'wheel', that is your signal. If your antenna isn't *at least* 1/4 wavelength above ground, your wheel is stuck in the dirt, trying to radiate freely. Makes sense to me, that way - and as long as any part of your antenna is up at 60' or above, you'll find you've got a better-than-average signal coming from the antenna with comparable power levels. So, I've said all that, to ask this question: What's the difference in half-wave dipoles and their height above ground, and a full wave loop ( L(ft) = 1005 / f(Mc) Using 75m as an example: L(ft) = 1005 / 3.9 L(ft) = 257.7ft ) operating at half-height, as a cloud warmer? I Have a loop up, except that this loop started life as an inverted Vee on 75m. The Apex of the antenna is around 60'. This is not where the feed point is. Because my 51' crankup Tri-Ex tower is buried in the ground in the -front- yard (I inheirited it from my dad, who set it up when I was still living on the Left coast) in order to fit the antenna in the lot, the feed point has to be pretty much over the house, and the antenna support off-center. After changing from coax to ladder line, it was just a matter of closing in the bottom of the 75m Inverted Vee. The rope that holds the apex of the antenna in the air (via a pulley attached to a 40' push-up mast, in the middle of the tower) angles down to the yard-separating fence, which pulls the bottom part of the antenna away from the tower by about 10'. Over all length of the antenna is somewhere around 240 and 260'. I didn't measure. 60' of open-wire feed-line forgives many measuring sins. I am using a Heathkit SA-2060A 2kW impedance matching device, which has a nice, -big- torroid balun that directly feeds the open-wire output. It is curious to note that I now find I don't need to run more than around 100w to be only 3db weaker than those stations running 500w or more, of carrier output. 200w of carrier from my rig into this antenna has me a bit better than equal signal strength in the Northeast (according to WA1HLR) as compared to the 'power-houses' on 3.885 in the EARLY mornings. Since I have a bad case of neighboritis, I keep the power down. This loop is known to be called a Delta loop (looks like a big triangle), with the apex of the antenna around 60', the southwest end supported about 20~25 off the ground, and the northeast end about 10~15 off of the ground, and it is a full-wave loop antenna for 75m, except that it's on a Vertical plane, as opposed to a big ol' square cloud-warmer. I like to describe it best, by saying "If you've got room for a 75m Inverted vee, then you've got room for a delta loop antenna" The angle of radiation is -much- lower, but theres still enough high-angle stuff to work the close-in stuff, and because it -is- a loop, it's quieter than a dipole. The futzing and fretting over whether or not the ladderline legs should be spread out or not? pshaw... it don't need to be perfect - it just needs to have power fed to it. What I'd -really- like to try, is to utilze my neigbors two 70' tall Pecan trees, run a straight line between them, then bring the two lines down in an inverted delta position, and feed it where the antenna points to the ground. But as I've stated... I have neighboritis. I can't convince them that by raising the lightbulb further away from the area that's being illuminated, the less light there will be to shine on the affected area. *shrug* The same argument could be used against Covenance cases... the higher the antenna, the less likely it will interfere with something, close-in. Another good argument for having your half-wave dipole at least 1/4w above ground... Try it. You might be surprised. --- 73 = Best Regards, -Geoff/W5OMR
Re: [AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
The neat thing is that in the hundreds of comments on this subject over the past few weeks, the ones with the anti-social attitude that are behind this latest boondoggle proposal from the ANTI-RADIO REGRESSION LEAGUE... This was all in an earlier thread where the little PRO-Bandwidth Proposal Group got thoroughly stomped by the rest. In that discussion there was pretty much no hostile comment against AM. http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=107079 50 Pages of well-reasoned discussion (in most cases) and rebuttal by the people who have experienced the MENACE that K4CJX, KQ6XA and their petty, "Anti-amateur-radio-as-we-know- it" crowd are trying to FORCE on amateur radio. You will find VERY few supporters of this Bandwidth Proposal. The whole thing needs to be rejected lock, stock and barrel. I have left ARRL because of this, and the other (many) things they have done over the past few years to ruin amateur radio. They are NOT listening, and they are NO LONGER "Of, By and For the Radio Amateur." They are now Of, By and For the Commercial, Digital Special Interest Lobby headed by K4CJX and Winlink Pactor which has totally over-ruled sound judgement in regards to the rules governing automatic unattended HF digital stations The following is the BACKDROP to the lunacy that is now prevailing in ARRL's Proposal (WHICH I understand may be actually with the ENCOURAGEMENT AND COMPLICITY of FCC) http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html A torpedo fired into the heeart of AM would NOT be out of step with the kind of MANIPULATION that is already going on behind the scenes. OR just the threat of it to intimidate others into getting on board this train to hell in a hand basket. Your mileage may vary. My mileage will mostly stick with preserving the right to HOMEBREW, and to operate AM and CW without QRM from the PAC PESTS that belong on VHF and above. On 5 Dec 2005 at 0:33, Donald Chester wrote: > I think we could have reasonably well predicted this: > > "...Perhaps the one thing most egregious to digital proponents in the ARRL > bandwidth plan has been an exemption in the 3.5khz band segment for AM. Mr. > Rotolo confirms that this exception has raised quite a ruckus in the digital > community. It begs the question, if an exception is created for AM why not > an exception for 25khz data..." > > "...Perhaps the petition shows undue favoritism for AM phone. Instead of > that, a better way would be a 10kHz bandwidth overlay in parts of larger HF > ham bands at REDUCED AVERAGE POWER LEVEL(emphasis mine) This would allow AM > but not preclude other transmission methods with similar bandwidth occupancy > effects. Obviously, the ARRL has bowed to tradition in these areas in their > efforts to accommodate the status quo." > > http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=108389 > > Don k4kyv > > > __ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
[AMRadio] FS: Military Surplus SHOCKMOUNTS
FOR SALE: Military Surplus Shock Mounts. Dimensions: 2-3/8" X 2-3/8" - Depth of 1-3/8" with four mounting holes for chassis side, and one larger screw for the equipment side. Will sell all EIGHT for $12.00 plus shipping. Pictures and details at: http://www.af4k.com/miscpart.htm
Re: [AMRadio] Loop antenna feed question
LB Cebik, W4RNL, on his web site, talking about Cloud Warmers, indicates 35 feet as the accepted height for a 75m loop. I am planning a loop for 160m at just a little over that height. Joe W4AAB - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Loop antenna feed question > John, > > Hmmm 450" loop at 5'. Feedpoint impedance would vary all over the place > depending on frequency. Do you transmitting on this setup, and if so, are > you using some kind of an antenna tuner, balanced output or single ended, how > long is the feedline, and what frequencies do you intend to use? In any case, > can't see that fanning out at the feedpoint would be necessary or useful. > > Dennis D. W7QHO > Glendale, CA > __ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami >
[AMRadio] AM Exemption Already Drawing Fire
I think we could have reasonably well predicted this: "...Perhaps the one thing most egregious to digital proponents in the ARRL bandwidth plan has been an exemption in the 3.5khz band segment for AM. Mr. Rotolo confirms that this exception has raised quite a ruckus in the digital community. It begs the question, if an exception is created for AM why not an exception for 25khz data..." "...Perhaps the petition shows undue favoritism for AM phone. Instead of that, a better way would be a 10kHz bandwidth overlay in parts of larger HF ham bands at REDUCED AVERAGE POWER LEVEL(emphasis mine) This would allow AM but not preclude other transmission methods with similar bandwidth occupancy effects. Obviously, the ARRL has bowed to tradition in these areas in their efforts to accommodate the status quo." http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=108389 Don k4kyv
[AMRadio] Meter for Heath DX60
Anyone have a meter for the older DX60? It's the one that mounts behind the panel. A friend and I are restoring the DX60 from my late Elmer, K5ZFM, and need a replacement meter. Mike Duke, K5XU American Council of Blind Radio Amateurs
Re: [AMRadio] Loop antenna feed question
Getting up a bit higher would probably improve things. To get on the air I've used setups worse than I care to talk about. Anything works better than nothing. Right now I'm using a dipole thats about 54' each side, fed with a pair of 80' RG-59 coax cables to a 4:1 balun in the basement, with 3' of RG-58 to a tuner. Ladder line is useless in my situation. Its hanging off 30' of chain link fence top rail, swagged together, run vertical, and bolted to a 4x4 post. The 5100-b loads up anywhere from 80 to 10 meters. I have been told it can't work. Go figger. Good luck, George KB2Z At 05:43 PM 12/4/05, you wrote: John, I to am a novice at this stuff. I'm having trouble visualizing your antenna. You said, >"the fence - of about > 450 feet diameter, and nearly (but not quite) > square." Could you clarify this to me? I too have a horizontal loop. Mine is about 15' off the ground, and has about 240' of wire (roughly 4 X 60'). I feed it with 450 ohm ladder line to the ground. My antenna is resonant at about 3.9 Mhz, and the impedance at SWR minimum (1.5:1) is about 80 ohms. I measure this right on the ground between the ladder line and my DPDT knife switch (I ground it out when not in use). I then use a 1:1 current balun, and RG-8X coax to the shack. My first try was to convert from 450 to 300 ohm tv twin lead at the hole in the wall, and go straight to a Johnson 275 matchbox with 300 ohm twin lead. This was dismal since the Johnson matchbox doesn't seem to have a wide tuning range to feed 80 ohms balanced. It did work unbalanced however, but poorly. So I switched to coax after a 1:1 balun for the run inside. If I do it again, and intend to feed this antenna at resonance, 75 ohm coax straight all the way might be an option. This loop loads up like a SOB, and absolutely NO RF in the shack. The problem though is that my signal reports are usually poor (often) to great (once in a while). It seems that for this to work efficiently as a low horizontal loop (high angle radiator) for short skip, I need good soil conductivity, or counterpoise. Stations beyond 500 miles can hardly copy me, and yet I can sometimes be full scale at 150 to 200 miles out early in the evening. Regards, Jim WD5JKO --- John Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Well - my Valiant is putting out stable rated > power on all bands - this > morning I'll suss out where the audio is > disappearing to - should be ready > for Air then... now to turn to the Radiator. > > > I'm still in the 'steep' part of the EasyNEC > learning curve - and I've > gone through the several ARRL antenna books - so I'm > properly confused. > > I have a loop of 14ga hard copper wire around the > rear of my propery, > attached (with insulators spaced at abt 8' apart) to > the fence - of about > 450 feet diameter, and nearly (but not quite) > square. It is about 5' above > the ground, except for one leg which is attached to > the house, where it is > about 7'. I am feeding it with 450-ohm ladder-line. > My Question to the > Antenna Gurus is this: At the feed-point, should I > maintain the > ladder-line spacing where it joins the loop ends, or > should there be an > angle, ie. should the loop ends be wider than the > feedline pitch - and if > so, what should the included angle of the feedline > 'transistion' be...? > >I've approached this from two or three analytical > directions, and of > course have different (and somewhat exclusive) > "answers" so I'm > Learning, which is a good thing. > > > Cheers > > John KB6SCO > > > __ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami > __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
Re: [AMRadio] Loop antenna feed question
John, Hmmm 450" loop at 5'. Feedpoint impedance would vary all over the place depending on frequency. Do you transmitting on this setup, and if so, are you using some kind of an antenna tuner, balanced output or single ended, how long is the feedline, and what frequencies do you intend to use? In any case, can't see that fanning out at the feedpoint would be necessary or useful. Dennis D. W7QHO Glendale, CA
Re: [AMRadio] 15 Meter AM QSO!
I tried a number of CQ's on 21.420 about 4PM EST but couldn't raise anyone nor did I hear any AM. So, went over to 6 meters for awhile and worked a number of stations out in the midwest. Band has been open, and still is, most of Sunday afternoon. Pete, wa2cwa On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 15:51:53 -0600 "Mike Duke, K5XU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's a good day when I have an AM QSO on 15 meters. > > I just signed with John, Wa0FDV, from Fargo. > > When he was talking with Mark, I couldn't hear him, and lost Mark > during the > qso. > > We managed about 10 minutes, with me running my TS570 at 25 watts. > > I'm glad to see people trying 15 meters. Most of the time, 15 meter > AM is a > giant myth in my part of the country. > > Maybe we should start trying to populate at least the top 25 KHZ > with AM > signals whenever the band is open. It would be even better to go for > the top > 50. > > > > Mike Duke, K5XU > American Council of Blind Radio Amateurs
Re: [AMRadio] Loop antenna feed question
John, I to am a novice at this stuff. I'm having trouble visualizing your antenna. You said, >"the fence - of about > 450 feet diameter, and nearly (but not quite) > square." Could you clarify this to me? I too have a horizontal loop. Mine is about 15' off the ground, and has about 240' of wire (roughly 4 X 60'). I feed it with 450 ohm ladder line to the ground. My antenna is resonant at about 3.9 Mhz, and the impedance at SWR minimum (1.5:1) is about 80 ohms. I measure this right on the ground between the ladder line and my DPDT knife switch (I ground it out when not in use). I then use a 1:1 current balun, and RG-8X coax to the shack. My first try was to convert from 450 to 300 ohm tv twin lead at the hole in the wall, and go straight to a Johnson 275 matchbox with 300 ohm twin lead. This was dismal since the Johnson matchbox doesn't seem to have a wide tuning range to feed 80 ohms balanced. It did work unbalanced however, but poorly. So I switched to coax after a 1:1 balun for the run inside. If I do it again, and intend to feed this antenna at resonance, 75 ohm coax straight all the way might be an option. This loop loads up like a SOB, and absolutely NO RF in the shack. The problem though is that my signal reports are usually poor (often) to great (once in a while). It seems that for this to work efficiently as a low horizontal loop (high angle radiator) for short skip, I need good soil conductivity, or counterpoise. Stations beyond 500 miles can hardly copy me, and yet I can sometimes be full scale at 150 to 200 miles out early in the evening. Regards, Jim WD5JKO --- John Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Well - my Valiant is putting out stable rated > power on all bands - this > morning I'll suss out where the audio is > disappearing to - should be ready > for Air then... now to turn to the Radiator. > > > I'm still in the 'steep' part of the EasyNEC > learning curve - and I've > gone through the several ARRL antenna books - so I'm > properly confused. > > I have a loop of 14ga hard copper wire around the > rear of my propery, > attached (with insulators spaced at abt 8' apart) to > the fence - of about > 450 feet diameter, and nearly (but not quite) > square. It is about 5' above > the ground, except for one leg which is attached to > the house, where it is > about 7'. I am feeding it with 450-ohm ladder-line. > My Question to the > Antenna Gurus is this: At the feed-point, should I > maintain the > ladder-line spacing where it joins the loop ends, or > should there be an > angle, ie. should the loop ends be wider than the > feedline pitch - and if > so, what should the included angle of the feedline > 'transistion' be...? > >I've approached this from two or three analytical > directions, and of > course have different (and somewhat exclusive) > "answers" so I'm > Learning, which is a good thing. > > > Cheers > > John KB6SCO > > > __ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami >
Re: [AMRadio] Keep Trying 15 Meters
The way to do it is like you guys did today. Put the messages on the reflector so people know where and when to listen. Bob Macklin K5MYJ Seattle, Wa. - Original Message - From: "Mike Duke, K5XU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Discussion of AM Radio" Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 2:05 PM Subject: [AMRadio] Keep Trying 15 Meters > John, Wa0FDV, is still calling cq on 21.422 if anyone else wants to try to > work him. > > It's now 22:05Z, and I am also hearing a few 6 land stations on ssb. > > > > > > Mike Duke, K5XU > American Council of Blind Radio Amateurs > > > > __ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami >
[AMRadio] 15m AM efforts
Just heard KA1FC with the Pacific Maritime Service Net on 21412 Sadly since the FCC dumbed down amateur radio in the late 70s by doing away with callsign area / QTH-specific numerals in callsigns, we have no idea where he is, no idea which way to point the beam if we have one etc. OK he just said he is in Boston. SO why can't anyone up in 1-Land hear my CQ calls on AM (grin!) Actually he is not moving my s-meter... (grin!)
Re: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54
Band appears to be dead now!! On 4 Dec 2005 at 17:26, Radio Station KW1I wrote: > I have been monitoring the last few hours and have given a few calls, but > nothing heard on 21.425 in NH. > > Dale > KW1I > > - Original Message - > From: "Brian Carling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Discussion of AM Radio" > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 5:22 PM > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54 > > > > Calling CQ there right now... 21425... > > > > There was a brief opening on 6m this afternoon. So things > > are looking up! > > > > Brian, AF4K > > > > On 4 Dec 2005 at 13:56, Jim Wilhite wrote: > > > > > Just gave a call on 21.425 from Sulphur, OK and no answer. > > > > > > 73 Jim > > > W5JO > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Mark K3MSB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "List AMradio" > > > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 1:39 PM > > > Subject: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54 > > > > > > > > > > Listening on 21.425. > > > > > > > > SSB Sigs heard lower on the band; AL0F heard on AM earlier. > > > > > > > > Will listen with the beam W/SW until around 5 PM EST. > > > > > > > > Mark K3MSB > > > > __ > > > > AMRadio mailing list > > > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > > > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > > > > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > > > > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > > > > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > AMRadio mailing list > > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > > > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > > > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > > > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami > > > > > > __ > > AMRadio mailing list > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami >
Re: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54
I have been monitoring the last few hours and have given a few calls, but nothing heard on 21.425 in NH. Dale KW1I - Original Message - From: "Brian Carling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Discussion of AM Radio" Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54 > Calling CQ there right now... 21425... > > There was a brief opening on 6m this afternoon. So things > are looking up! > > Brian, AF4K > > On 4 Dec 2005 at 13:56, Jim Wilhite wrote: > > > Just gave a call on 21.425 from Sulphur, OK and no answer. > > > > 73 Jim > > W5JO > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Mark K3MSB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "List AMradio" > > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 1:39 PM > > Subject: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54 > > > > > > > Listening on 21.425. > > > > > > SSB Sigs heard lower on the band; AL0F heard on AM earlier. > > > > > > Will listen with the beam W/SW until around 5 PM EST. > > > > > > Mark K3MSB > > > __ > > > AMRadio mailing list > > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > > > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > > > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > > > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami > > > > > > > > > > __ > > AMRadio mailing list > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami > > > __ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
Re: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54
Calling CQ there right now... 21425... There was a brief opening on 6m this afternoon. So things are looking up! Brian, AF4K On 4 Dec 2005 at 13:56, Jim Wilhite wrote: > Just gave a call on 21.425 from Sulphur, OK and no answer. > > 73 Jim > W5JO > > - Original Message - > From: "Mark K3MSB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "List AMradio" > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 1:39 PM > Subject: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54 > > > > Listening on 21.425. > > > > SSB Sigs heard lower on the band; AL0F heard on AM earlier. > > > > Will listen with the beam W/SW until around 5 PM EST. > > > > Mark K3MSB > > __ > > AMRadio mailing list > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami > > > > > > __ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
[AMRadio] Keep Trying 15 Meters
John, Wa0FDV, is still calling cq on 21.422 if anyone else wants to try to work him. It's now 22:05Z, and I am also hearing a few 6 land stations on ssb. Mike Duke, K5XU American Council of Blind Radio Amateurs
[AMRadio] 15 mtr AM
It's great to see the interest in 15 mtr Am. Sorry i missed todays activity,hope to be on tomorrow..Ron W6MAU
[AMRadio] 15 Meter AM QSO!
It's a good day when I have an AM QSO on 15 meters. I just signed with John, Wa0FDV, from Fargo. When he was talking with Mark, I couldn't hear him, and lost Mark during the qso. We managed about 10 minutes, with me running my TS570 at 25 watts. I'm glad to see people trying 15 meters. Most of the time, 15 meter AM is a giant myth in my part of the country. Maybe we should start trying to populate at least the top 25 KHZ with AM signals whenever the band is open. It would be even better to go for the top 50. Mike Duke, K5XU American Council of Blind Radio Amateurs
Re: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54
I heard Mark faintly in Ms, but lost him before he finished his qso. John is now coming in good, but I couldn't hear him earlier.
Re: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54
Hi Jim -- Just finished up a nice fat chewing session with John WA0FDV in Fargo ND. Mark K3MSB On 12/4/05, Jim Wilhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just gave a call on 21.425 from Sulphur, OK and no answer. > > 73 Jim > W5JO > > - Original Message - > From: "Mark K3MSB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "List AMradio" > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 1:39 PM > Subject: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54 > > > > Listening on 21.425. > > > > SSB Sigs heard lower on the band; AL0F heard on AM earlier. > > > > Will listen with the beam W/SW until around 5 PM EST. > > > > Mark K3MSB > > __ > > AMRadio mailing list > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami > > > > > > __ > AMRadio mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html > Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami >
[AMRadio] TMC IPA
NEED MANUAL OR INFO-DIAGRAM FOR IPA DRIVER-AMP.
Re: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54
Just gave a call on 21.425 from Sulphur, OK and no answer. 73 Jim W5JO - Original Message - From: "Mark K3MSB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "List AMradio" Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 1:39 PM Subject: [AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54 Listening on 21.425. SSB Sigs heard lower on the band; AL0F heard on AM earlier. Will listen with the beam W/SW until around 5 PM EST. Mark K3MSB __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
[AMRadio] 15 M AM Sun 12/54
Listening on 21.425. SSB Sigs heard lower on the band; AL0F heard on AM earlier. Will listen with the beam W/SW until around 5 PM EST. Mark K3MSB
RE: [AMRadio] Gates am-80
Thanks Steve appreciate -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 1:11 PM To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Gates am-80 I don't have the full manual on the AM-80 here at home, but I'll send you a copy of the schematic by email. You can probably make it mroe sensitive... Steve WD8DAS [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
Re: [AMRadio] Gates am-80
I don't have the full manual on the AM-80 here at home, but I'll send you a copy of the schematic by email. You can probably make it mroe sensitive... Steve WD8DAS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[AMRadio] Loop antenna feed question
Well - my Valiant is putting out stable rated power on all bands - this morning I'll suss out where the audio is disappearing to - should be ready for Air then... now to turn to the Radiator. I'm still in the 'steep' part of the EasyNEC learning curve - and I've gone through the several ARRL antenna books - so I'm properly confused. I have a loop of 14ga hard copper wire around the rear of my propery, attached (with insulators spaced at abt 8' apart) to the fence - of about 450 feet diameter, and nearly (but not quite) square. It is about 5' above the ground, except for one leg which is attached to the house, where it is about 7'. I am feeding it with 450-ohm ladder-line. My Question to the Antenna Gurus is this: At the feed-point, should I maintain the ladder-line spacing where it joins the loop ends, or should there be an angle, ie. should the loop ends be wider than the feedline pitch - and if so, what should the included angle of the feedline 'transistion' be...? I've approached this from two or three analytical directions, and of course have different (and somewhat exclusive) "answers" so I'm Learning, which is a good thing. Cheers John KB6SCO
[AMRadio] Collins Collectors Assoc. First Wednesday AM NIght Dec. 7th!
FIRST WEDNESDAY AM NIGHT!!! Sponsored by the Collins Collectors Association. Wednesday December 7th on 3880 kcs at 7:00 PM local East Coast time marks the start of the latest chapter of First Wednesday AM Night, drawing hundreds of vintage stations from across the country. The event is anchored by a "tall ship" AM station in each time zone. The East Coast and Central sections will now run for 90 minutes in response to the tremendous participation in those time zones. The remaining time zones will be an hour. We encourage stations to check-in on AM using Collins and other AM transmitters, new and old. It's an opportunity to revel in this nostalgic mode, enjoy giving vintage equipment a "run," and sharing some storytelling about classic vacuum tube homebrew and commercial designs. Typically more than a hundred stations take part in the evening's coast-to-coast AM event; by the time it concludes at 10:00 PM Local PST. LISTEN for the following anchors and stop by to say hello, won't you? You don't have to be running Collins or vintage gear to be welcomed into the group. 7:00 PM-8:30 PM Local East Coast Time Anchor: Stu AB2EZ filling in for Bob W0YVA 7:30 PM-9:00 PM Local Central Time Anchor: Jim W0NKL 8:00 PM-9:00 PM Local Mountain Time Anchor: Jim WA0LSB 8:00 PM-9:00 PM Local West Coast Time Anchor: Bill N6PY comments please to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
